Democrats are winning the redistricting war — for now, anyway

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

As the old-timey term suggests, gerrymandering has a long history in American politics. But it has intensified in recent years — first after the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims, and again last summer, when President Donald Trump urged Republicans in Texas to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. 

Texas Republicans drew up new congressional districts last summer that are expected to net their party five more US House seats in the upcoming midterm election. Californians responded by voting for an equal and opposite redistricting plan that should swing five seats for Democrats. 

On Tuesday night, Dems notched another big win when voters in Virginia approved a new map that’s expected to flip four seats their way. But the Great Redistricting Wars aren’t over. In fact, they’re still spilling over to other states. So, this morning, we’re tallying each side’s score in the electoral arms race (and concluding that the real loser might be democracy). 

Democrats strike back. The Virginia referendum — and a similar initiative in California — were intended to offset Texas’s new maps. Currently, Virginia’s congressional delegation is split 6-5 in Democrats’ favor. The referendum approved on Tuesday night asked voters to rejigger the map to favor Democrats in 10 districts, netting four seats and bolstering Democrats’ chances of flipping the House of Representatives. 

The proposal marked a significant shift for Democrats, who have often opposed partisan gerrymandering in the past. And the victory itself was hard won. Though Virginia has tended to vote for Democrats in presidential and gubernatorial elections since 2000, the state is swingy and had a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, until January. 

Voters also complained about confusing messaging from both sides of the campaign, and many independent voters seemed uncomfortable with the notion of a partisan power grab. The electorate leaned more Republican than it did in last year’s elections, and the race was closer than expected.

Still, urban centers like Richmond, Virginia Beach, and the Washington, DC, suburbs of northern Virginia turned out enough Democratic and independent votes to carry the measure. Combined with redrawn maps in several other states — including California, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Utah — the Virginia vote creates the possibility that Democrats will enter the midterm elections with a one-seat edge.

Florida could be next. Primaries have already begun in several states, so time is running out for any enterprising partisans who want to gerrymander further ahead of the midterms. The big wild card is Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has wanted to redraw his state’s maps since Trump’s appeals last summer. 

But the effort has been mired in GOP infighting and a lack of preparation, and it faces a state constitution that bars partisan redistricting. The state legislature is scheduled to meet for a special session to create anywhere from one to five additional Republican-leaning districts next week.

“It’s a big state, so that would give Republicans a lot of opportunity,” Barry C. Burden, an elections expert at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told my colleague Christian Paz. But it also creates some risk for Republicans: In spreading their voters across new districts, they’re opening themselves up to the possibility of an upset — particularly if Latino voters drift back toward Democrats.

The Supreme Court has the last word. A pending Supreme Court decision could, crucially, also kick off another round of gerrymandering just ahead of the midterm elections. It’s a scenario that my colleague Ian Millhiser called “nightmare fuel for Democrats.”

The Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 law, prohibits election practices that discriminate based on race and has historically been used to justify the creation of congressional districts where racial minorities make up a majority of the population. Should the Court strike down that provision during this term, a number of Southern states would likely redraw their electoral maps. Several still have time to do so before the midterm contests.

What would that mean in political terms? Nothing good for Democrats. Last fall, a New York Times analysis predicted the party could lose roughly a dozen districts, wiping out whatever gains it made in the California and Virginia referendums.

Partisan gerrymandering isn’t great for democracy, either. While research suggests it doesn’t significantly increase polarization — a claim some critics have made — widespread gerrymandering could dilute the power of voters in affected districts and dampen political competition. But few in power seem to care about that much anymore, as long as it’s the other side facing limits. 

“We’re not engaged in political gerrymandering,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told the Times this week. “We are engaged in responding to the Republican effort to rig the midterm elections.”